SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Development of Continuous Deflection Device
- Notice Date
- 7/29/2008
- Notice Type
- Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
- NAICS
- 541712
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- The National Academies, Transportation Research Board, Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), 500 Fifth Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia, 20001
- ZIP Code
- 20001
- Solicitation Number
- SHRP2R06F
- Archive Date
- 9/24/2008
- Point of Contact
- James Bryant,, Phone: 202-334-2087, Linda Mason,, Phone: 202-334-3241
- E-Mail Address
-
jbryant@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- SHRP 2 Request for Proposals Focus Area: Renewal Project Number: R06-F Project Title: Development of Continuous Deflection Device Date Posted: July 29, 2008 SHRP 2 Background To address the challenges of moving people and goods efficiently and safely on the nation's highways, Congress has created the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). SHRP 2 is a targeted, short-term research program carried out through competitively awarded contracts to qualified researchers in the academic, private, and public sectors. SHRP 2 addresses four strategic focus areas: the role of human behavior in highway safety (Safety); rapid highway renewal (Renewal); congestion reduction through improved travel time reliability (Reliability); and transportation planning that better integrates community, economic, and environmental considerations into new highway capacity (Capacity). Under current legislative provisions, SHRP 2 will receive approximately $150 million with total program duration of 7 years. Renewal Focus Area The U.S. highway system is aging and must be rebuilt while we are driving on it and living next to it. Research in the SHRP 2 Renewal focus area therefore addresses the need to develop a consistent, systematic approach to completing highway projects quickly, with minimal disruption to the community, and producing facilities that are long-lasting. Identifying new technologies for locating underground utilities; developing procedures to speed the evaluation of designs and the inspection of construction; and applying new methods and materials for preserving, rehabilitating, and reconstructing roadways and bridges are among the goals for this focus area. Alternative strategies for contracting, financing and managing projects, and mitigating institutional barriers also are part of the emphasis on rapid renewal. The renewal scope applies to all classes of roads. Project Background The selection of optimum rehabilitation strategies for distressed jointed concrete pavements is one of the biggest challenges that transportation agencies face. Hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlays of concrete pavement are commonly used nationwide as a rehabilitation alternative but are considered a short-term solution because of the presence of reflection cracking. Other frequently used alternatives include joint replacement, dowel bar retrofit, and slab fracturing techniques. Key engineering information needed to develop the selection of optimum rehabilitation strategies includes the load transfer efficiency (LTE) at joints, structural uniformity, and void detection. This information can be obtained with traditional equipment such as falling weight deflectometers (FWD) but obtaining sufficient data with this device is slow, cost prohibitive, and exposes workers and the public to risk. Consequently only a very small percentage of the joints are tested on current rehabilitation projects. Quantifying the number and location of poor joints is critical in developing cost-effective rehabilitation strategies. There exists a need to develop a device that can rapidly provide 100% coverage of existing joint condition in order to support development of long-lasting pavement rehabilitation designs. Several continuous deflection devices have been developed as alternatives to FWDs. While these devices offer the potential of 100% coverage at higher speeds (1 mph) as compared to an FWD, there remain concerns as to the cost and operational feasibility of such a device and the magnitude of the further developmental effort needed to make the devices practical for use on rapid renewal projects. Project Objective The objective of this project is to critically assess the potential of existing continuous deflection devices as a practical and cost-effective tool for use in the development of optimum pavement rehabilitation strategies on rapid renewal projects. This assessment will examine: 1. The potential demand by and value to public agencies 2. The technical capabilities (including accuracy and repeatability of test results and ability to provide meaningful data), limitations (field applications, equipment configuration, operating and safety characteristics), and other impediments to implementation of existing devices 3. Further development of the technology including both hardware and software needed to make these tools practical for use. Tasks Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. SHRP 2 is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meet the research objective(s): Phase I Task 1: Conduct a review of all published and unpublished literature and case studies to assess the state of practice and state of the art of continuous deflection devices used to assess pavement conditions. Task 2: Conduct interviews with state DOTs to assess the demand and the potential value of continuous deflection devices for use in developing optimum pavement rehabilitation strategies for rapid renewal projects. The assessment should consider a variety of pavement types with a particular emphasis on jointed concrete pavements. The interviews shall include at least 3 states where such devices have already been used and 10 other states facing substantial renewal challenges on high traffic volume roadways where the devices are not currently in use. Task 3: Contact the owners of the existing continuous deflection devices to obtain sample data and explore opportunities for field evaluations on actual pavement evaluation projects. LTE is of particular interest but all capabilities of the devices should be considered. Task 4: Based on the information from previous tasks prepare a plan for field evaluation of the devices that includes comparison with FWD data. Task 5: Develop and submit a Phase I Interim report detailing all of the work conducted in the preceding tasks and provide a draft work plan for Phase II. The draft work plan should identify all elements needed to achieve the project objectives and describe how all of the tasks in Phase II will be accomplished. The plan should also identify the proposed projects for the field evaluation. The Phase I report for this project will be reviewed by the SHRP 2 Technical Coordinating Committee for Highway Renewal to consider the proposed work plan for Phase II, and to determine whether this contract should continue into Phase II. Phase II After approval of the work plan developed in Phase I and on receipt of notice to proceed to Phase II, conduct the following tasks: Task 6: Conduct field evaluation of the continuous deflection devices. Task 7: Analyze the data collected from the field evaluation to characterize the accuracy and repeatability of test results and the devices' ability to provide meaningful data. Task 8: Prepare and submit a draft final report documenting all of the findings. In addition the report must answer the following questions: 1. Under what circumstances of need and cost would highway agencies use this technology? 2. What are the primary barriers to DOT use of these devices? 3. Are the test data accurate and repeatable? 4. Do the devices to provide meaningful data to support pavement renewal decisions? 5. What limitations hinder the implementation of these devices? 6. What further development or refinement of the equipment and software to implement these devices is needed for wide spread use? What are the associated costs? Task 9: Prepare and submit a final report. Deliverables 1. Phase I Report 2. Phase II Work Plan 3. Draft Final and Final Report 4. Monthly and Quarterly progress reports 5. Two (2) interim meetings with SHRP 2 staff, one (1) in Washington, DC, and one (1) at the contractor's facility 6. One (1) interim meetings with the TCC in Washington, DC; Irvine, CA; or Woods Hole, MA 7. Telephone conference calls and web meetings as needed. Funds Available: $250,000 Contract Period: 24 Months Responsible Staff: James Bryant, jbryant@nas.edu, 202-334-2087 Authorization to Begin Work: February 2009, estimated Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on September 9, 2008 This is a firm deadline, and extensions simply are not granted. In order to be considered, all 20 copies of the agency's proposal accompanied by the executed, unmodified Liability Statement must be in our offices not later than the deadline shown, or they will be rejected. Liability Statement The signature of an authorized representative of the proposing agency is required on the unaltered statement in order for SHRP 2 to accept the agency's proposal for consideration. Proposals submitted without this executed and unaltered statement by the proposal deadline will be summarily rejected. An executed, unaltered statement indicates the agency's intent and ability to execute a contract that includes the provisions in the statement. The Liability Statement is Figure 1 in the Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2 ( http://trb.org/shrp2/SHRPII_Instructions.asp ) (see General Note 4). Here is a printable version of the SHRP 2 Liability Statement ( http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/LiabilityStatement.pdf ). A free copy of the Adobe Acrobat PDF reader is available at http://www.adobe.com. Delivery Address PROPOSAL-SHRP 2 ATTN: Neil F. Hawks Director, Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-334-1430 General Notes 1. Proposals will be evaluated by SHRP 2 staff and Expert Task Groups (ETGs) consisting of individuals collectively very knowledgeable in the problem area. Selection of an agency is made by the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee, based on the recommendation from SHRP 2 staff and the ETG. The following factors are considered: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experimental design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the proposer's plan for participation by disadvantaged business enterprises-small firms owned and controlled by minorities or women; and (5) the adequacy of facilities. 2. Any clarifications regarding this RFP will be posted on the SHRP 2 Web site ( www.TBR.org/SHRP2 ). Announcements of such clarifications will be posted on the front page and, when possible, will be noted in the TRB e-newsletter. Proposers are advised to check the Web site frequently until August 26, 2008, when no further comments will be posted. 3. According to the provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, which relates to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, all parties are hereby notified that the contract entered into pursuant to this announcement will be awarded without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability. 4. The essential features required in a proposal for research are detailed in the Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2 ( http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/PreparingSHRP2Reports.pdf ). Proposals must be prepared according to this document, and attention is directed specifically to Section IV for mandatory requirements. Proposals that do not conform to these requirements will be rejected. 5. The total funds available are made known in the project statement and line items of the budget are examined to determine the reasonableness of the allocation of funds to the various tasks. If the proposed total cost exceeds the funds available, the proposal is rejected. 6. All proposals become the property of the Transportation Research Board. Final disposition will be made according to the policies thereof, including the right to reject all proposals. IMPORTANT NOTICE Potential proposers should understand that the research project described herein is tentative. The final content of the program depends on the level of funding made available. Nevertheless, to be prepared to execute research contracts as soon as possible after sponsors' approvals, the Strategic Highway Research Program is assuming that the tentative program will become official in its entirety and is proceeding with requests for proposals and selections of research agencies.
- Web Link
-
FedBizOpps Complete View
(https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e63d0cf07602e17e0b2489a53074a949&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Record
- SN01626241-W 20080731/080729230441-e63d0cf07602e17e0b2489a53074a949 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |